tuscl

Smoking, when it comes down to it

potheadpl
Florida
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:11 AM
Non-smokers are forced to endure(yes, endure) the smoker's habit if they frequent a business where smoking is allowed. Since all bars allow smoking, the non-smoker is basically screwed. He is forced to sacrifice his health and comfort for a night's entertainment. Smokers in a non-smoking business are simply required to venture outside to engage in their habit. Someone NOT smoking doesn't impact the comfort or health of a smoker. My eyes are red, my throat burns, and my clothes REEK after I leave the strip club. Granted, my eyes are usually red when I enter(pot does that). Smoking bans WILL be enacted nationwide, eventually. Is venturing outside to smoke such a hassle?

44 comments

  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    Here in Columbus, OH the smoking ban is enforced pretty well. I don't like the second hand smoke but I don't support a government smoking ban. I think it should be left up to the individual clubs if they want smoking or not. Once the smoking ban goes into effect they are just going to keep regulating more shit like the no touching laws/6 feet rules.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    The non-smoker isn't being forced at all. Nobody is forcing him to be there.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    gmd, A good place to post a lesson in Economics 101. Were there a demand for a non-smoking versus a smoking business, they would be prevalent. They are not. End of lesson.
  • potheadpl
    •
    14 years ago
    Clubber----smoking is not the reason for the existance of the SC. People go to SCs DESPITE the smoking. As I've mentioned to you before, one of the top rated clubs in the US is non-smoking(Mons Venus). Go ahead and read the reviews. See anyone bitching that their club experience was lessened because they couldn't smoke? GMD---the smoker IS forced to endure the smoke, if he wants to see and enjoy naked women. Or go to a nightclub, or a pub. Samsung--the smoking ban is not going to be targeted at strip clubs. It's going to be a blanket law stating no smoking indoors. Period. Saying the next step will be six foot laws is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. Smokers intrude upon non-smokers when they smoke. Period.
  • bigdude012
    •
    14 years ago
    All I ask of the smokers is that have the decency not to blow it in my face and if I am sitting down and they come sit near me to have the common courtsey to ask if I care if they light one up. I generally don't care unless it is that strong
  • sharkhunter
    •
    14 years ago
    In a smoke free environment, the next thing you'll notice is if someone emits a smoke smell from all their clothes reeking of it. I can easily smell that smell several feet away just from someone walking by in a smoke free environment. The one plus I see to allow smoking in clubs, you know if someone smokes or not without having to figure it out or ask. I thought it was amusing to watch a sci-fi show one night where the guy went back in time to the 70's and was on board an airplane. It looked like it could almost be a strip club. They were smoking and drinking and it looked like a party.
  • minnow
    •
    14 years ago
    Afaik, CA & OH are 2 states that have indoor smoking bans. In some OH clubs, for winter considerations, they have a seperate enclosed smoking patio. The "Dale Mabry Duo" in Tampa, as you mentioned 1 is non-smoking, Centerfolds in Phoenix area last visit had an enclosed smoking room for smokers, with main floor being non-smoking. To smokers who don't think smoking odors are intrusive: Would you enjoy sitting next to someone who farted a lot because they enjoyed the pleasure of eating a lot of spicy Mexican food?
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    potheadpl, You are in desperate need of an economic education. Using a sample of one to try and prove a point is idiotic. For your enlightenment, I recommend for beginners, " Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity " by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee.
  • mmdv26
    •
    14 years ago
    I have been on the front lines of the smoking issue. I am a city councilman in the city I live in, and we passed a smoking ban last year. 27 of 32 eating establishments within the city limits were already smoke free. All of the pool halls (5 or 6) allowed smoking. No strip clubs in my town. My position was, "what's the problem? 27/32 already smoke free." The potential adverse effects of 2nd hand smoke on employees' health was the item that tipped the scales in this case. After months of debate, we crafted an indoor smoking ban that contained some effective date delays for certain classes of (smoking)establishments so they could adjust their marketing and business model. It was a good compromise which passed unanimously, but ultimately left the convenience of "choice" by owner or patron out of the formula. I had to recognize that the overall well-being of the community in this health-related issue outweighed the convenience of choice. Many portray the indoor smoking ban as a "quality of life" issue, and I don't really disagree with that. Discussions with scores of my constituents revealed that a majority of them favored a ban without complicated signs on the door that caused them to have to make a decision. Chances are great that the state will upgrade its clean indoor air act within the next few years. They need to focus on that now, and ignore any bills that contain the phrases "shall not touch" or "stay 6 feet away from"...unless they're talking about open fires.
  • bellman
    •
    14 years ago
    The city of Philadelphia has a smoking ban on all public indoor sites, thus including bars and SCs. The SCs in various suburban locations generally allow smoking. As a non-smoker I wish all smoking everywhere would end; the population would be healthier for it!
  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    minnow, thanks for the info. When I was in dayton I did not notice the indoor smoking ban being enforced. I assumed maybe it was a Columbus thing.
  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    wikipedia has an interesting wiki on the smoking bans and a US map of what states have a smoking ban and what kind (bars, restaurants, both ,etc.) " A smoking ban (either state, county, or local) has been enacted covering all bars and restaurants in each of the 60 most populated cities in the United States except these 16: Arlington, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Miami, Las Vegas, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, Tampa, Tulsa, and Virginia Beach.[3][4]"
  • SuperDude
    •
    14 years ago
    Michigan's smoking ban went into effect on May 1, 2010. There is an exception for the floor of the gambling casinos, but the ban is in effect in all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and public places throughout the state. Oh, there is an exception for cigar bars, but there will be no new cigar bars licensed.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    Everyone is really overlooking the real issue which is government encroachment on our liberties.
  • DandyDan
    •
    14 years ago
    I can agree with pothead. Smoking intrudes on the right nonsmokers have to breathe clean air while in an indoor public facility. I don't why it's so hard to go outside. It's not like they think of the strip clubs when they come up with these laws. Nobody in a government is ever going to come up with a strip club exemption for anything. And I don't think anyone goes to strip clubs purely for the smoking, especially since you can do that at home. I don't see why Clubber and those of his ilk see that smoking is an encroachment on the rights of everyone else. Maybe we should just stick a waste dump on their property just for entertainment purposes.
  • potheadpl
    •
    14 years ago
    Clubber---how about the other clubs in Hillsborough County which are smoke-free and are raking in the bucks? Let me make it as crystal clear as I can for you, OK? People don't go to strip clubs to smoke. If the option to smoke is removed, people WILL STILL GO TO LOOK AT AND GROPE YOUNG NAKED SLUTS. Unless they're gay, that is. But, there is an oral fixation involved in smoking(the cigarette/cigar representing the smoker's desire for cock), so maybe I'm on the right track there..... Encroachment on your liberties? No. You have no "right to smoke". However, I have a right to clean air.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    14 years ago
    I am against smoking in public enclosed places. IMO, people have the right to smoke all they want, as long as it does not interfere with my right to clean air. Maybe a better issue would be that establishments that allow smoking have improved ventilation systems.
  • Philip A. Stein
    •
    14 years ago
    I always love how smokers use the economic angle to try and justify their (our) rude, inconsiderate and disrespectful behavior. There would be no laws regarding smoking if smokers simple respected non smokers. Smokers just don't. Smokers have to be told not to smoking in non smokers' houses, their cars, around children, and even in non smoking sections of restaurants. Some of the nicest people I know are complete idiots when they light up. They have no ability to control their addiction to cigs, too weak minded to be able to fight nicotine. They are unable to understand basic politeness like don't blow your smoke in my face. They don't care that I don't want my clothing to smell like their breath. They dump their ashtrays in the parking lot or at the stop sign. They don't care what the effects of their pollution is. I can't feel sorry for or make a case for smokers. Smokers just haven't earned it. Quite frankly, they have brought all the wrath on themselves. Smokers are reeping what they have sowed. And it pisses me off. I enjoy a cigar once a month or so. Enjoying a cigar with a nice scotch is even better. Enjoying a cigar, a nice scotch and nakid women is the best! Too bad that all ended May 1st in Michigan because the 20% who smoke just couldn't do so in a why that recognized the rights of the remaining 80%. Seriously, what did smokers expect?
  • Prim0
    •
    14 years ago
    Encroachment on your liberties? No. You have no "right to smoke". However, I have a right to clean air. You do have a right to clean air. Lets force all automobiles, factories and other polluters to shut down, go away and die. You know what else is bad for the public...strip clubs. They degrade the morals of non-stripclubbers. We should get rid of them too. Also, fast food joints...lets get rid of them. What else is bad for us and others around us? Lets get rid of that too!!! You may say that I'm be rediculous but lets just look at how the goverment is forcing us to do things "for our own good". You may agree with some of the issues but what will you do when they come after something you like and don't agree with everyone else on? Who will you complain to then? This is supposed to be a free country. If I as a buisiness owner want to allow somking I should be allowed to. If you as a non-smoker would like to open up competition that is non-smoking..go for it. By your logic, you should blow me away with all of your profits. Then you will succeed...your non-smoking customers and employees will have a nice clean-air place to hang out/work... and leave the rest of us alone to live our lives the way we wish to!!! Jesus...this world would be so much better if everyone would just mind their business!
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    "Jesus...this world would be so much better if everyone would just mind their business!" You mean like the non-smokers who try to force private property owners to provide them with an environment to their liking, whether those property owners want to or not? pothead, you don't have a right to enter private property without permission, nor do you have the right to look at naked women (unless you *are* a woman, with access to a mirror) without their permission,, so I'm more than a little confused as to how you can be claiming to be forced to enter. Was someone holding a gun to your head and making you enter this private property? Despite your claim to the contrary, he *does* have a right to smoke, as long as the owner of the private property in question has given his or her permission. txtittyfan, well then, you should have no problem with smoking in strip clubs, since the vast majority of them are private property, not public.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    potheadpl, You continue to show your ignorance. This truly isn't a smoking/non-smoking issue. You state, "You have no "right to smoke". However, I have a right to clean air." You are correct that I have no "right" to smoke (I don't smoke!), but you have no "right" to clean air. "Rights" we have are few if you read our Constitution. What we do have are liberties and a government slowly eroding our liberties, not "rights". If you are to blind to see this encroachment, I pity you, because someday they will take away some liberty from YOU!
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    Clubber, you are not quite correct. You do indeed have the right to smoke, and he does indeed have a right to clean air. The right that neither of you has is to compel other people to provide you with your desire on their property. Nobody on this list would argue that a property owner has the right to decide to provide his customers with a smoke free environment, even if some, or even a majority, of those customers objected. We would all, rightly, claim something on the order of, "it's his property, he can do what he wants.". But when the situation is reversed, and the property owner wants to provide his customers with a smoking environment, he's suddenly bereft of his rights.
  • uscue13
    •
    14 years ago
    Clubber, I admit I don't really follow the issue closely so I'm asking for help here. How is the government encroaching on liberties? It seems to me, second-hand smoke has been proven to cause health problems. Therefore it is starting to be regulated where you can not smoke in *public* places. Now if there is a cigar bar, I wouldn't expect a ban put in place. How is it any different (if not worse, which I believe) than explicit sex in movies? It has been argued (I guess) that allowing minors to watch scenes of explicit sex/simulated sex is harmful to them (maybe their development?). Because of that, it has been regulated that kids under a certain age can't go see a Rated R movie alone. Seems like another argument about encroaching on our liberties. Let the kid go see whatever he wants right? His parents should restrict him, not regulations.
  • Otto22
    •
    14 years ago
    As a non-smoking Michigander I welcomed the May 1 advent of a smoking ban on indoor businesses. Like my pal Philip A. Stein I think the change was brought on by the behavior of a minority of smokers who could not stand to accommodate us non-smokers. I have wondered as well why businesses such as bars and SCs could not have installed better ventilation systems that would suck the smoke up to the ceiling and out through the roof. I have encountered such systems in a few places and was impressed by their effectiveness. Any business that complains of loss of patronage from smokers that nevertheless refused the reasonable accommodation of better exhaust deserves their plight.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    gmd, We had the liberty to smoke or not smoke. It is NOT a right. Also, we do NOT have the liberty to impose our wishes on others. As for you "property" point, you are correct. uscue13, I am not discussing the pros or cons of smoking, but rather, as you mention, governments encroachment. We, as free people have (or at least did have) liberty protected by our Constitution. Those liberties are being voided daily. I suppose you agree with the government telling what to eat, what to see, that you must buy health insurance, and the list goes on and on and on... Remember, I don't smoke, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    I agree. The non-smoker is not suffering a damn thing. He/she chooses to enter a BAR, where smoking should be allowed. I've never smoked a day in my life, but I CHOSE to work in a strip club, and yes, while sometimes the smoke was tough on my lungs, I bore it. Why? Because it was my choice to work in a smoke-laden atmosphere, as it is your choice to enter a bar. You are bitching, in my opinion.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    fd, I don't work in them, but I do visit, even if smoking is allowed, by CHOICE!
  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    Can't smoke indoors, what the fuck is that all about. I got kicked out of titty bar for smoking. Nah, that shit was ridicioulous. It's the stripper did it. She came up like "cough" your smoking is a health risk for me, I don't want ot work in this kind of environment. Bitch you had your gonorrhea infested pussy in my face, you started it. That's the dirtiest place I have been thrown out of...and by dirty what I mean is lap dances were $3...of course I did it, it was like a sale! -Dave Chappelle - Titty Bar and His Kids [view link]
  • potheadpl
    •
    14 years ago
    @fetish_dancer----And just why should smoking be allowed in a bar? What makes a bar so special? Because alcohol is served? Because it's a place for "adults"? That's bogus. There is nothing inherently UNHEALTHY about having a drink. It's recommended by physicians, actually. People who choose to work in a bar(or a strip club) shouldn't have to choose between their health and a paycheck, simply because some people CHOOSE to have a filthy habit that imposes itself on people around them.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    OK, a last word. Some people think THEIR wants and wishes have president over the wants and wishes of others. I guess believing their rights are special compared to the rights of others is fine in their book. Anyone that conceited is never going to listen to common sense, nor grasp its concept. Oh well! Idiocy is also a right, I guess.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    pothead: Um, because it's a BAR? A bar where alcohol is served should be a place where you can smoke. There are so many stupid smoking bans that bars are really the only sanctum for a smoker anymore. The way it should be. Did you not read the word "choice?" A non-smoking stripper, like I was, chooses to work in a smoke-filled room. She is not being forced to work there. She is not being forced to even enter the bar. It is her CHOICE. You are not being forced to enter a stripclub. It is your CHOICE. BTW, you have some nerve bitching about this when pot reeks a helluva lot worse than cigarette smoke. I should start screaming about you smoking pot. You want a non-smoking naked girl experience? Rent a hooker and take her back to your sanctimonious, cigarette-free hovel. Christ.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    14 years ago
    Now since all of the pro smokers seem to feel it is their right to smoke outside of their home, why don't they smoke in church, school and hospitals?
  • steve229
    •
    14 years ago
    Hey DoctorDarby, now would be a good time to use your thread killing ability.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    clubber: "We had the liberty to smoke or not smoke. It is NOT a right." Absent any context, you are correct. Nobody has an *absolute* right to do much of anything, except breath and, perhaps, catch/gather his or her own food. Even the latter is subject to respecting others' property rights. However, with certain contexts, you do indeed have the right to smoke. For instance, on your property. In other situations, for instance, on someone else's property, you might not have the right, but instead just have permission, which might be revoked at any time. uscue13: "How is the government encroaching on liberties?" By violating the property owner's right to manage his property as he sees fit. Since allowing smoking one one's own property doesn't violate anyone else's rights, unless s/he commits some kind of fraud by *claiming* to provide a non-smoking environment, and then not doing it (since no one but the owner has a *right* to be there), then the government has no business interfering. pothead: "And just why should smoking be allowed in a bar?" Not the proper question. The proper one is "what gives anyone but the property owner the right to control his business?" Unless that property owner has violated someone's rights, the answer is "nothing." And just for the record, failing to provide you (as either a willing customer *or* a willing employee) with the environment you want does *not* violate your rights, regardless of how much you desire that to be true. Now, if he was dragging you in off the street and forcing you to spend money, or forcing the employees to work there, you might have a point. But there are other laws already in place to deal with that. We don't need more. txtitty: "why don't they smoke in church, school and hospitals?" Well, in the case of schools (as long as you are talking the public kind), it's because they are publicly owned, and as such, the owners, i.e. the public *do* have a right to enter and be smoke free, if they want. As for churches and hospitals (absent issues of public ownership), as far as I'm concerned, they fall under the same principle as bars. If the owner wants to allow it, he can. If he doesn't, he doesn't have to, and the government has no business interfering either way. The only right you have with regard to someone else's property is the right to leave when you want. And if you contract that one away (which is virtually impossible in our society), then you're SOL there as well.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    gmd, One quick note. When I reference liberties and rights, I defer to the United States Constitution!
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    clubber: "When I reference liberties and rights, I defer to the United States Constitution!" Just so we're clear, the Constitution does *not* grant any of us any rights. It protects the rights we already have by virtue of simply being alive. That whole "endowed by their creator" thing in the Declaration. Note that everywhere the Constitution addresses the issue, it uses language such as "the right of the people [...] shall not be infringed," acknowledging the fact that the rights preceded the government, and will survive it, even if they are routinely violated. The only things the government can do with regard to rights are protect them or violate them. They used to do more of the former, now sadly, they're doing more of the latter.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    gmd, Amen!
  • potheadpl
    •
    14 years ago
    @Fetish Dancer----your point makes no sense. There is no reason why someone who wants to enjoy a cold beer in a bar should have to be subjected to cigarette smoke. The two activities are not linked. Smoking rates are at 25% or less, while more people than that drink. As for your other idiotic point, when I smoke pot IN PUBLIC I'll agree. But I do it in my own home or in my car in a parking lot. WTF are you talking about? The pro-smoking lobby wants to whine about "liberties" and "rights" but when the voters voice THEIR opinions, smoking bans pass overwhelmingly. Then the pro-smokers complaing that they're being oppressed. So, they want to be free to force their behavior on others(and regardless of opinion, some people are forced THROUGH THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES to work in smoke-filled environments), but get upset when voters use the law to empower theirs. Funny, that.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "Is venturing outside to smoke such a hassle?" No, but starting another whole thread on this issue wasn't really necessary though. ------------------------ "Were there a demand for a non-smoking versus a smoking business, they would be prevalent. They are not. End of lesson." LOL...ahhhhhh, the all-mighty, invisible hand of the "market" that those on the far Right would like to leave our entire society in the trusting hands of...no thanx! ------------------------- "Afaik, CA & OH are 2 states that have indoor smoking bans." As of May 2010, 26 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants...AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MT, NB, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA, and WI. States that exempt cigar bars...CA, CO, CT, MA, MI, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, and WI. States that exempt so-called "private clubs"...AZ, CT, IA, KS, MA, NY, and OH. States that exempt casinos...CT, IA, KS, ME, MI, NJ, NM, RI, and WI. States that exempt small workplaces...OH (only if "family owned & operated"). As of May 2010, 7 states ban smoking in most enclosed public places, but permit adult venues such as bars (and casinos, if applicable) to allow smoking if they choose...AK, FL, LA, NV, PA, ND, and TN. In DC & Puerto Rico, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places, including bars & restaurants. Guam prohibits smoking in restaurants only. -------------------------- "For your enlightenment, I recommend for beginners, 'Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity' by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee" ...who are three hard-Rightwingers, period end of story. ------------------------------------------------------------ "This is supposed to be a free country" ...and it still is...no one is out to ban smoking altogether, period. ---------------------------------- "you should have no problem with smoking in strip clubs, since the vast majority of them are private property, not public." As per usual, you guys are completely missing the point. These establishments *are* public places because the general public frequents them, NOT because they are "owned" by the government! ---------------------------------------------- "It seems to me, second-hand smoke has been proven to cause health problems. Therefore it is starting to be regulated where you can not smoke in *public* places." Exactly. -------------------- "I am not discussing the pros or cons of smoking" ...because you know that you'd LOSE that argument, period. "Remember, I don't smoke, so I don't have a dog in this fight." Of course you do you moron! Your "dog in this fight" is your radical Right-wing, the free market-is-right-at-all-costs political belief, period end of story! ----------------------------- "A bar where alcohol is served should be a place where you can smoke." Why?? A bar where alcohol is served, period. "I should start screaming about you smoking pot" ...which is a form of smoking, which would be banned under any anti-smoking law...whether smoking pot was legal or not in the first place. -------------------- "By violating the property owner's right to manage his property as he sees fit." Jesus man...you just basically finished saying that no rights are absolute (which is correct), and this statement makes NO sense given that fact. "As for churches and hospitals (absent issues of public ownership), as far as I'm concerned, they fall under the same principle as bars. If the owner wants to allow it, he can." Ahhhhh...smoking in hospitals...sounds really "healthy" to me...not...ugh...
  • jabthehut
    •
    14 years ago
    george, you are wrong that "the Constitution does *not* grant any of us any rights. It protects the rights we already have by virtue of simply being alive." How does simply being alive give one the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to a public and speedy trial. As to your argument about private property: Anyone who owns property NOT open to the public can set the rules for that property. The owner can say who enters and who doesn't and can even base it on such things as race, sex, religion, age. I can serve alcohol if I want. I can ask strippers who are only less than 30 and white to come in. I can allow smoking. Anyone who opens his/her property to the public, e.g. bars, hotels, strip clubs, can and are told by the government if they can or can't sell alcohol. They can be and are told how many people they can allow in at one time (Fire Code). They can be and are told if they can or can't serve alcohol. Strip clubs are told that they can't hire only girls under 30 and white. They can also be told whether or not they can allow smoking.
  • Clubber
    •
    14 years ago
    YAWN! YAWN!!
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    >@Fetish Dancer----your point makes no sense. There is no reason why someone who wants to enjoy a cold beer in a bar should have to be subjected to cigarette smoke. The two activities are not linked. Smoking rates are at 25% or less, while more people than that drink.< Drinking is unhealthy. So is smoking. You're here yelling against smokers, but you haven't said a word about alcohol. Be fair, here. >As for your other idiotic point, when I smoke pot IN PUBLIC I'll agree. But I do it in my own home or in my car in a parking lot. WTF are you talking about?< The smell. How dare you be forced to inhale cigarette smoke, but you're still willing to breathe in pot-laden air from blunts. The comment about the smell was off-topic. You have no argument here. You smoke pot, which goes to your lungs, and then you bitch and moan about cigarette smoke, which also goes to your lungs. And don't tell me pot doesn't affect your lungs, either. Any kind of smoke hurts your body. >The pro-smoking lobby wants to whine about "liberties" and "rights" but when the voters voice THEIR opinions, smoking bans pass overwhelmingly. Then the pro-smokers complaing that they're being oppressed. So, they want to be free to force their behavior on others(and regardless of opinion, some people are forced THROUGH THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES to work in smoke-filled environments), but get upset when voters use the law to empower theirs. Funny, that.> It still stands. It's a fucking bar. People smoke in bars. They're being banned from pretty much everywhere else, so they have bars. You and people like you attempting to encroach on the bar scene and take that away is wrong.
  • potheadpl
    •
    14 years ago
    @fetish_dancer---actually, drinking in moderation IS NOT UNHEALTHY. Bioflavonoids and all that. I drink Guinness. It's as good for you as red wine. Cardiac health, reduced blood pressure, etc. The three or four tokes I take off of my pipe pale in comparison to sitting in a smoky SC for three hours. And the cigarette SMELL that clings to my clothes afterwards is sickening. I don't smoke "blunts". I'm not ghetto. I'm a white guy. Pipe or vaporizer, sweetheart. Smoking WILL eventually be banned indoors everywhere. It's simple. If I'm sitting in a room not smoking, it doesn't affect anyone else. If someone smokes, it affects EVERYONE else.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "george, you are wrong that 'the Constitution does *not* grant any of us any rights. It protects the rights we already have by virtue of simply being alive.' How does simply being alive give one the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to a public and speedy trial." Actually, he's correct about the U.S. Constitution. Our rights as human beings come from nowhere, therefore they can never truly be taken away. We have rights because we are human beings, period. "The owner can say who enters and who doesn't and can even base it on such things as race, sex, religion, age." Not in this day & age I bet. ---------------------------------- "It's a fucking bar. People smoke in bars." Not all people.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion